This explains the origin of the title "Pontifex
Maximus" for the Papacy, written by Mark Bonocore

Title "Pontifex Maximus"
or "Supreme Pontiff"

<< One of the most amazing aspects about the
ascendancy of the papacy is that the church of Rome promotes the pope
as the "Pontifex Maximus" or, Supreme Pontiff. The title
Pontifex Maximus is mentioned numerous times by the early church
fathers (particularly by Tertullian), but it was not applied to a
Christian bishop. The early church fathers say that the Pontifex
Maximus was the "King of Heathendom", the evil high priest
of the pagan mystery religion of Rome. It is certainly not likely that
Christ appointed Peter "Pontifex Maximus" of Rome. >>

Of course Christ didn't appoint Peter to be the Pontifex Maximus. And
of course the early Church Fathers spoke of the Pontifex
Maximus in such derogatory, paganistic ways. Because when the early
Fathers were writing, the Pontifex Maximus was the head of the Roman pagan
religion, and the Roman Empire itself was pagan. As any student of Roman
history knows, the Pontifex Maximus was an imperial office, usually held
by the Emperor himself, which made one the "chief priest" of
the Roman "state cult."

Now as I said, in the days of the
early Fathers, this "state cult" was paganism and Emperor
worship. Yet, when Constantine the Great became the first Christian
Roman Emperor, the "state cult" changed to Christianity. Now,
oddly enough, the first Christian emperors all still retained the title
of Pontifex Maximus (a traditional title for Emperors) which, under
imperial law (though not Church law), actually made them the "Head
of the Church" ! It was by this authority, for example, that
Constantine called the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) to settle the Arian
controversy.

Indeed, it was not until the Empire split in two, with the Western
Empire going to the pious, youthful Emperor Gratian (c. 360 AD) that
the Pope was given the title Pontifex Maximus. Indeed, feeling that
it was not right for he himself to carry that title (since he was, after
all, not a Christian priest) the pious young Emperor bestowed it upon
Pope Damasus I, who became the first Pope in history to hold the title
"Pontifex Maximus."

Yet, this was only a legal title; and the
Popes didn't pay much attention to it at the time, but continued to
maintain that their authority came from the Apostle Peter and Peter alone. It was
not until the Popes began to conflict with several heretical Eastern
Emperors (who, by the way, never relinquished the title "Pontifex
Maximus" in the Eastern Empire) that the Popes began asserting
their legal authority under imperial law.

This is why the Pope is
referred to as the "Pontifex Maximus" or "Supreme
Pontiff" today, and not because of any carry-over from paganism.
Just as there were pagan Emperors and Christian Emperors, just as there
are pagan kings and Christian kings, so there are pagan Pontiffs and
Christian Pontiffs. Our critic's anti-Catholic prejudice prevents him
from appreciating this.

As for Tertullian's reference to Pontifex Maximus (cited by our
critic above), this is most interesting indeed since, despite our
critic's spin on things, it is a powerful proof for the authority of the
early Roman Papacy. As already described by both the author and myself,
Tertullian was (at the time) a Montanist heretic who clashed with Pope
Callistus I (c. 220 AD) over Callistus' relaxation of the Church's
penitential discipline, allowing repentant adulterers and fornicators
back into the Church, even if they were "repeat offenders."

Now, as our critic pointed out, Callistus cited his Petrine authority to
"bind and loosen" to validate his decree. In response, the
heretical Tertullian has this to say:

"In opposition to this [modesty], could I not have acted the
dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth,
and a peremptory one too. The 'Pontifex Maximus,' that is the
'bishop of bishops,' issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have
discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery
and of fornication.' O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, 'Good
deed!' ...Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation!" (On
Modesty 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers IV:74)

Now Tertullian is obviously being sarcastic in calling Pope
Callistus by such names as "bishop of bishops" and "Pontifex
Maximus" -- both of these titles, as I said, being imperial pagan
ones at this time (c. 220 AD). However, the mere fact that Tertullian (a
heretic) is referring to the Pope this way, shows that Pope Callistus
wielded authority outside of his own bishopric and throughout the
universal Church.

Indeed, Tertullian continues to criticize Pope Callistus, saying:

"I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the
right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to
Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church ...[Matt 16-19]' that the
power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you,
that is, to every church akin to that of Peter? What kind of man are
you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord
when He conferred this personally on Peter? 'On you,' He says,
'I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys'...." (Tertullian,
On Modesty 21:9-10)

So, what does this tell us? While Tertullian (a Montanist heretic,
who at this time did not recognize Apostolic succession or any Church authority)
criticizes it, the fact is clear that here in 220 AD, Pope Callistus
is claiming authority based on his direct succession from St. Peter and
using that authority to change a Church discipline that remained
changed from then on. This fact cannot be avoided. In other words,
the view of the heretic Tertullian was not the view of the rest of the
universal Church.